accelerating universe conundrum, help me find my logic flaw please

On Jun 4, 6:29*pm, "Painius" wrote:

"Artifacts"... "telemetry"... "denser, *contracted*
space"... *Again i say, logic dictates that there's no
effin' way.

If your 12" rule is the artifact, and you look at it far
away in denser contracted space, it will still look the
same. *Spatial expansion is undetectable by its very
nature... across the street or across the Universe.

Well, look at the Pioneer situation. The spacecraft aren't going
'straight out' from us, but are on a curved trajectory giving them
'proper motion' against the starfield that our radiotelescopes can
accurately track. The onboard clock registers the number of 'ticks of
time' elapsed since launch. We receive that data back via telemetry.
OK, we know the number of 'ticks' that have transpired on board. We
look at where the spacecraft *should be* against the starfield based
on the number of onboard 'ticks' that have transpired. And lo and
behold, the spacecraft position is lagging behind where it 'should
be'. So what's going on? It's pretty dadburned obvious-- the
spacecraft have traveled into denser, more compacted space and so
naturally appear to lag behind where they 'should be'. There's no
mystery to it. But the mainstream has no concept of what's behind the
perceived "anomaly". The PDT gradient of the Sun's gravity well can
never be recognized under their 'no medium' doctrine.

So now extrapolate 'waaay on out to deep
cosmological distances where the 1a supernova 'standard candles' are
beginning to appear dimmer than they 'should be'. Obviously there's no
telemetry coming back.:-) But the *cosmological PDT gradient*,
unrecognized by science, is begining to steepen exponentially. And we
see its artifacts in the SN1a data.
Light that began its journey in that denser, 'hotter' space, then
propagated into our less-dense, 'cooler' space naturally loses
amplitude (brigntness) just as is observed. That's the *visible*,
prima facie artifact of the cosmological PDT gradient. Now transpose
mentally to the 'outside' referance frame (the vantage point of
Wolter's 'c-dilation'). Obviously the clock rate or 'tick of time' AND
the speed of light have slowed concomitantly with the PDT drop,
gradually leveling out to their present values. Yet from here
'inside', the speed of light and clock rate are constant *here*
locally, just as they are constant *there*, locally. The invariance of
c is never violated `locally` nor is any other constant. The sole
variable is the PDT value of space, whether across a 'tiny' gradient
like a star's gravity well or across the deep-past, exponentially-
steepening cosmological PDT gradient.

SR recognizes c as constant in all inertial frames. But it has yet to
recognize PDT gradients and the constancy of c `locally` in all PDT
frames as well. And GR recognizes a drop in lightspeed the deeper you
go in a gravity well. But it doesn't recognize WHY the drop.
Recognizing PDT gradients will upgrade both SR and GR from their
present 'flat' status.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Jun 4, 6:29 pm, "Painius" wrote:

"Artifacts"... "telemetry"... "denser, *contracted*
space"... Again i say, logic dictates that there's no
effin' way.

If your 12" rule is the artifact, and you look at it far
away in denser contracted space, it will still look the
same. Spatial expansion is undetectable by its very
nature... across the street or across the Universe.

Well, look at the Pioneer situation. The spacecraft aren't going
'straight out' from us, but are on a curved trajectory giving them
'proper motion' against the starfield that our radiotelescopes can
accurately track. The onboard clock registers the number of 'ticks of
time' elapsed since launch. We receive that data back via telemetry.
OK, we know the number of 'ticks' that have transpired on board. We
look at where the spacecraft *should be* against the starfield based
on the number of onboard 'ticks' that have transpired. And lo and
behold, the spacecraft position is lagging behind where it 'should
be'. So what's going on? It's pretty dadburned obvious-- the
spacecraft have traveled into denser, more compacted space and so
naturally appear to lag behind where they 'should be'. There's no
mystery to it. But the mainstream has no concept of what's behind the
perceived "anomaly". The PDT gradient of the Sun's gravity well can
never be recognized under their 'no medium' doctrine.

Yes, and you are not describing expanding space when
you describe both Pioneers' situations. Pioneer has not
expanded as far as anybody can see. And if it had, how
would we know? You have described, above, a spatial
energy-density contraction, not a spatial volume
expansion, correct?

So now extrapolate 'waaay on out to deep
cosmological distances where the 1a supernova 'standard candles' are
beginning to appear dimmer than they 'should be'. Obviously there's no
telemetry coming back.:-) But the *cosmological PDT gradient*,
unrecognized by science, is begining to steepen exponentially. And we
see its artifacts in the SN1a data.
Light that began its journey in that denser, 'hotter' space, then
propagated into our less-dense, 'cooler' space naturally loses
amplitude (brigntness) just as is observed. That's the *visible*,
prima facie artifact of the cosmological PDT gradient. Now transpose
mentally to the 'outside' referance frame (the vantage point of
Wolter's 'c-dilation'). Obviously the clock rate or 'tick of time' AND
the speed of light have slowed concomitantly with the PDT drop,
gradually leveling out to their present values. Yet from here
'inside', the speed of light and clock rate are constant *here*
locally, just as they are constant *there*, locally. The invariance of
c is never violated `locally` nor is any other constant. The sole
variable is the PDT value of space, whether across a 'tiny' gradient
like a star's gravity well or across the deep-past, exponentially-
steepening cosmological PDT gradient.

And again, you seem to be saying that the PDT of space,
the SPED, is changing, NOT the volume of space.

SR recognizes c as constant in all inertial frames. But it has yet to
recognize PDT gradients and the constancy of c `locally` in all PDT
frames as well. And GR recognizes a drop in lightspeed the deeper you
go in a gravity well. But it doesn't recognize WHY the drop.
Recognizing PDT gradients will upgrade both SR and GR from their
present 'flat' status.

I have no argument with any of this, oc. However, your
referring to a higher energy-density of space as "contracted
space" in a previous post seems to me to be very different
from mainstream science pounding away at the *volume* of
space expanding, and how the great distances involving the
superclusters and above are the only distances at which we
can perceive this volumnal expansion.

So i still contend that such an expansion of volume must be
absolutely undetectable either just outside the Solar System
or just outside the Virgo supercluster.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com

the mental transposition to view it from an 'outside' referance frame.
After all, seeing from alternate frames is what the 'relative' in
relativity is all about.

On Jun 7, 4:23 am, "Painius" wrote:

...you are not describing expanding space when
you describe both Pioneers' situations. Pioneer has not
expanded as far as anybody can see. And if it had, how
would we know? You have described, above, a spatial
energy-density contraction, not a spatial volume
expansion, correct?

Spatial volume *contracts* with increasing energy-density(PDT value).
Out where the Pioneer spacecraft are, the volume of space and *of the
spacecraft themselves* has contracted relative to 'here' deeper in the
Sun's gravity well. 'Here', space is expanded and stretched Sun-ward.
Out 'there', space is denser and more contracted in the Sun-ward
direction.

Outside the Sun's (or any star's) gravity well, the PDT *and volume*
of space stabilize to their ambient values.. until at deep distances
of several billion LY where the *cosmological PDT gradient* begins to
kick in.

So now extrapolate 'waaay on out to deep
cosmological distances where the 1a supernova 'standard candles' are
beginning to appear dimmer than they 'should be'. Obviously there's no
telemetry coming back.:-) But the *cosmological PDT gradient*,
unrecognized by science, is begining to steepen exponentially. And we
see its artifacts in the SN1a data.
Light that began its journey in that denser, 'hotter' space, then
propagated into our less-dense, 'cooler' space naturally loses
amplitude (brigntness) just as is observed. That's the *visible*,
prima facie artifact of the cosmological PDT gradient. Now transpose
mentally to the 'outside' referance frame (the vantage point of
Wolter's 'c-dilation'). Obviously the clock rate or 'tick of time' AND
the speed of light have slowed concomitantly with the PDT drop,
gradually leveling out to their present values. Yet from here
'inside', the speed of light and clock rate are constant *here*
locally, just as they are constant *there*, locally. The invariance of
c is never violated `locally` nor is any other constant. The sole
variable is the PDT value of space, whether across a 'tiny' gradient
like a star's gravity well or across the deep-past, exponentially-
steepening cosmological PDT gradient.

And again, you seem to be saying that the PDT of space,
the SPED, is changing, NOT the volume of space.

The volume IS contracting with increasing PDT value. My use of the
term "sole variable" should carry this addendum. Thank you. Spatial
volume *contracts* all the way back to the instant of its emergence
from the BB. I had assumed this was already understood. The addendum
will be carried hereafter.

SR recognizes c as constant in all inertial frames. But it has yet to
recognize PDT gradients and the constancy of c `locally` in all PDT
frames as well. And GR recognizes a drop in lightspeed the deeper you
go in a gravity well. But it doesn't recognize WHY the drop.
Recognizing PDT gradients will upgrade both SR and GR from their
present 'flat' status.

I have no argument with any of this. However, your
referring to a higher energy-density of space as "contracted
space" in a previous post seems to me to be very different
from mainstream science pounding away at the *volume* of
space expanding, and how the great distances involving the
superclusters and above are the only distances at which we
can perceive this volumnal expansion.

So i still contend that such an expansion of volume must be
absolutely undetectable either just outside the Solar System
or just outside the Virgo supercluster..

....until doing the mental transposition to view it from an 'outside'
referance frame. After all, seeing from alternate frames is what the
'relative' in relativity is all about. :-)

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...

the mental transposition to view it from an 'outside' referance frame.
After all, seeing from alternate frames is what the 'relative' in
relativity is all about.

On Jun 7, 4:23 am, "Painius" wrote:

...you are not describing expanding space when
you describe both Pioneers' situations. Pioneer has not
expanded as far as anybody can see. And if it had, how
would we know? You have described, above, a spatial
energy-density contraction, not a spatial volume
expansion, correct?

Spatial volume *contracts* with increasing energy-density(PDT value).
Out where the Pioneer spacecraft are, the volume of space and *of the
spacecraft themselves* has contracted relative to 'here' deeper in the
Sun's gravity well. 'Here', space is expanded and stretched Sun-ward.
Out 'there', space is denser and more contracted in the Sun-ward
direction.

Outside the Sun's (or any star's) gravity well, the PDT *and volume*
of space stabilize to their ambient values.. until at deep distances
of several billion LY where the *cosmological PDT gradient* begins to
kick in.

So now extrapolate 'waaay on out to deep
cosmological distances where the 1a supernova 'standard candles' are
beginning to appear dimmer than they 'should be'. Obviously there's no
telemetry coming back.:-) But the *cosmological PDT gradient*,
unrecognized by science, is begining to steepen exponentially. And we
see its artifacts in the SN1a data.
Light that began its journey in that denser, 'hotter' space, then
propagated into our less-dense, 'cooler' space naturally loses
amplitude (brigntness) just as is observed. That's the *visible*,
prima facie artifact of the cosmological PDT gradient. Now transpose
mentally to the 'outside' referance frame (the vantage point of
Wolter's 'c-dilation'). Obviously the clock rate or 'tick of time' AND
the speed of light have slowed concomitantly with the PDT drop,
gradually leveling out to their present values. Yet from here
'inside', the speed of light and clock rate are constant *here*
locally, just as they are constant *there*, locally. The invariance of
c is never violated `locally` nor is any other constant. The sole
variable is the PDT value of space, whether across a 'tiny' gradient
like a star's gravity well or across the deep-past, exponentially-
steepening cosmological PDT gradient.

And again, you seem to be saying that the PDT of space,
the SPED, is changing, NOT the volume of space.

The volume IS contracting with increasing PDT value. My use of the
term "sole variable" should carry this addendum. Thank you. Spatial
volume *contracts* all the way back to the instant of its emergence
from the BB. I had assumed this was already understood. The addendum
will be carried hereafter.

SR recognizes c as constant in all inertial frames. But it has yet to
recognize PDT gradients and the constancy of c `locally` in all PDT
frames as well. And GR recognizes a drop in lightspeed the deeper you
go in a gravity well. But it doesn't recognize WHY the drop.
Recognizing PDT gradients will upgrade both SR and GR from their
present 'flat' status.

I have no argument with any of this. However, your
referring to a higher energy-density of space as "contracted
space" in a previous post seems to me to be very different
from mainstream science pounding away at the *volume* of
space expanding, and how the great distances involving the
superclusters and above are the only distances at which we
can perceive this volumnal expansion.

So i still contend that such an expansion of volume must be
absolutely undetectable either just outside the Solar System
or just outside the Virgo supercluster..

...until doing the mental transposition to view it from an 'outside'
referance frame. After all, seeing from alternate frames is what the
'relative' in relativity is all about. :-)

I'm still grokkin' on all this. Just wanted you to know
i'm not ignorin' it.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com

"oldcoot" wrote in message
...
the mental transposition to view it from an 'outside' referance frame.
After all, seeing from alternate frames is what the 'relative' in
relativity is all about.

On Jun 7, 4:23 am, "Painius" wrote:

...you are not describing expanding space when
you describe both Pioneers' situations. Pioneer has not
expanded as far as anybody can see. And if it had, how
would we know? You have described, above, a spatial
energy-density contraction, not a spatial volume
expansion, correct?

Spatial volume *contracts* with increasing energy-density(PDT value).
Out where the Pioneer spacecraft are, the volume of space and *of the
spacecraft themselves* has contracted relative to 'here' deeper in the
Sun's gravity well. 'Here', space is expanded and stretched Sun-ward.
Out 'there', space is denser and more contracted in the Sun-ward
direction.

Outside the Sun's (or any star's) gravity well, the PDT *and volume*
of space stabilize to their ambient values.. until at deep distances
of several billion LY where the *cosmological PDT gradient* begins to
kick in.

So now extrapolate 'waaay on out to deep
cosmological distances where the 1a supernova 'standard candles' are
beginning to appear dimmer than they 'should be'. Obviously there's no
telemetry coming back.:-) But the *cosmological PDT gradient*,
unrecognized by science, is begining to steepen exponentially. And we
see its artifacts in the SN1a data.
Light that began its journey in that denser, 'hotter' space, then
propagated into our less-dense, 'cooler' space naturally loses
amplitude (brigntness) just as is observed. That's the *visible*,
prima facie artifact of the cosmological PDT gradient. Now transpose
mentally to the 'outside' referance frame (the vantage point of
Wolter's 'c-dilation'). Obviously the clock rate or 'tick of time' AND
the speed of light have slowed concomitantly with the PDT drop,
gradually leveling out to their present values. Yet from here
'inside', the speed of light and clock rate are constant *here*
locally, just as they are constant *there*, locally. The invariance of
c is never violated `locally` nor is any other constant. The sole
variable is the PDT value of space, whether across a 'tiny' gradient
like a star's gravity well or across the deep-past, exponentially-
steepening cosmological PDT gradient.

And again, you seem to be saying that the PDT of space,
the SPED, is changing, NOT the volume of space.

The volume IS contracting with increasing PDT value. My use of the
term "sole variable" should carry this addendum. Thank you. Spatial
volume *contracts* all the way back to the instant of its emergence
from the BB. I had assumed this was already understood. The addendum
will be carried hereafter.

SR recognizes c as constant in all inertial frames. But it has yet to
recognize PDT gradients and the constancy of c `locally` in all PDT
frames as well. And GR recognizes a drop in lightspeed the deeper you
go in a gravity well. But it doesn't recognize WHY the drop.
Recognizing PDT gradients will upgrade both SR and GR from their
present 'flat' status.

I have no argument with any of this. However, your
referring to a higher energy-density of space as "contracted
space" in a previous post seems to me to be very different
from mainstream science pounding away at the *volume* of
space expanding, and how the great distances involving the
superclusters and above are the only distances at which we
can perceive this volumnal expansion.

So i still contend that such an expansion of volume must be
absolutely undetectable either just outside the Solar System
or just outside the Virgo supercluster..

...until doing the mental transposition to view it from an 'outside'
referance frame. After all, seeing from alternate frames is what the
'relative' in relativity is all about. :-)

Okay, so here we are for the moment in a RF that's
waay outside, and we see two galaxies. That one
over on the left is a small spiral galaxy. And that
one over there on the right is a very large spiral
galaxy. So either the volume of space in the area
of the small galaxy is contracted and the volume of
space in the vicinity of the huge spiral is expanded,

OR,

we're just looking at a small galaxy and a huge
galaxy in an area of space for which the volume is
uniform throughout...

Even way out here in this outside RF, how would we
know?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

On Jun 15, 1:23*pm, "Painius" wrote:

Okay, so here we are for the moment in a RF that's
waay outside, and we see two galaxies. *That one
over on the left is a small spiral galaxy. *And that
one over there on the right is a very large spiral
galaxy. *So either the volume of space in the area
of the small galaxy is contracted and the volume of
space in the vicinity of the huge spiral is expanded,

OR,

we're just looking at a small galaxy and a huge
galaxy in an area of space for which the volume is
uniform throughout...

Even way out here in this outside RF, how would we
know?

Well, assuming both galaxies are relatively close by in their
supercluster, the volume and PDT value of space in which they reside
would be uniform. Then you'd look at how far back in time the
supercluster itself resides. See graph -
http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot...ang/page2.html
If it's *far enough* back to where the cosmological PDT value is
beginning to really steepen, then the spatial volume will be
contracting concomitantly with it. You're simply "playing the tape
backwards" of the thinning and expansion of space on the cosmological
scale.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Jun 15, 1:23 pm, "Painius" wrote:

Okay, so here we are for the moment in a RF that's
waay outside, and we see two galaxies. That one
over on the left is a small spiral galaxy. And that
one over there on the right is a very large spiral
galaxy. So either the volume of space in the area
of the small galaxy is contracted and the volume of
space in the vicinity of the huge spiral is expanded,

OR,

we're just looking at a small galaxy and a huge
galaxy in an area of space for which the volume is
uniform throughout...

Even way out here in this outside RF, how would we
know?

Well, assuming both galaxies are relatively close by in their
supercluster, the volume and PDT value of space in which they reside
would be uniform. Then you'd look at how far back in time the
supercluster itself resides. See graph -
http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot...ang/page2.html
If it's *far enough* back to where the cosmological PDT value is
beginning to really steepen, then the spatial volume will be
contracting concomitantly with it. You're simply "playing the tape
backwards" of the thinning and expansion of space on the cosmological
scale.

Here's the thing...

The only way to sense this is by going into an
"outside reference frame". There is no way to
sense an expanding or contracting spatial volume
from Earth, none that i can make sense of anyway.

And the thing about outside reference frames is
that it requires a healthy imagination supported by
a sound foundation in what is already known about
whatever it is one is imagining. So i'm not arguing
against your above explanation. I'm just saying
that you and Gordon aren't the only ones who like
to go "outside the box". Some have gone there
and come back with "string theory". Einstein went
there and came back with relativity theories. But
then Galileo went there and came back with "the
tides are caused by the Earth's spin, which makes
the oceans slosh around". And Ptolemy went there
only to come back and use his math prowess to
show that "beyond any doubt, Earth is the center
of the Universe".

This is why it is so important to realize that any
idea, good or bad, that is the offspring of a trip to
our imaginations must be subject to the evidence
that can be determined...

in this frame of reference, i.e., from the
perspective of scientific scrutiny on planet
Earth.

All else, whether sound or frivolous, is speculation
without evidence to back it up.

And that's why people like Sagan and many others
highly value the imagination right along with their
highly valued scientific method.

It's time to find a way, using the scientific method,
to show that the SPED causes gravity. Once this is
done, many other refinements to relativity and to
quantum mechanics will soon follow.

And then politicians will probably blow up the Solar
System.

g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

On Jun 16, 11:44*am, "Painius" wrote:

*There is no way to
sense an expanding or contracting spatial volume
from Earth, none that i can make sense of anyway.

No direct way, no. But look at its artifacts such as the excessive
SN1a dimming. Or right in our back yard, at the Pioneer anomaly. Your
main skepticism is toward the cosmological density gradient (or PDT
gradient). There's always the alternative : space is a universally-
isotropic 'void-nothing' all the way back to the instant of the BB.
The speed of light is universally invariant all the way back to the
BB. The 'void-nothing' is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate. The
BB was a singular 'one-shot' event, and the universe will end in an
ignominious entropic heat death.

It's time to find a way, using the scientific method,
to show that the SPED causes gravity. *

(Raises hand meekly) The bathroom scale doesn't do it? Or jumping off
the roof? :-)
Just make one simple adjustment to the sitting
paradigm : replace the 'void' of space with the Plenum of space,
recognize it for what it _demonstrates itself to be_ (particularly in
the behavior of gravity) : a dynamic, highly mobile Fluid that's
compressible/expansible and amenable to density (PDT) gradients.. and
under a state of hyperpressure exceeding degeneracy pressure of the
atomic nucleus.

Once this is
done, many other refinements to relativity and to
quantum mechanics will soon follow.

Yuppers. But it won't happen in the foreseeable future.

On Jun 16, 11:44*am, "Painius" wrote:

...it is so important to realize that any
idea, good or bad, that is the offspring of a trip to
our imaginations must be subject to the evidence
that can be determined...

* *in this frame of reference, i.e., from the
* *perspective of scientific scrutiny on planet
* *Earth.

All else, whether sound or frivolous, is speculation
without evidence to back it up.

....Unless, by its numerous cross-congruent 'sidebars' and spinoffs,
it addresses and answers such issues as : Unification of gravity with
the SNF, seamless conciliation of QM and relativity, resolution of
"dark matter/ dark energy", whether the universe is open-ended or
closed.. which bears on the biggest questions in cosmology, like the
ultimate fate of the universe. If the theory is elegant, rational, and
easily understood by the layman without need for math, and if it shows
all the fundamental forces and "particles" reducible to *processes* of
One Flow driven by One Force in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows,
then, based on the law of probability (vis-a-vis "uncertainty"), the
theory holds a better chance of being true, than not.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Jun 16, 11:44 am, "Painius" wrote:

...it is so important to realize that any
idea, good or bad, that is the offspring of a trip to
our imaginations must be subject to the evidence
that can be determined...

in this frame of reference, i.e., from the
perspective of scientific scrutiny on planet
Earth.

All else, whether sound or frivolous, is speculation
without evidence to back it up.

....Unless, by its numerous cross-congruent 'sidebars' and spinoffs,
it addresses and answers such issues as : Unification of gravity with
the SNF, seamless conciliation of QM and relativity, resolution of
"dark matter/ dark energy", whether the universe is open-ended or
closed.. which bears on the biggest questions in cosmology, like the
ultimate fate of the universe. If the theory is elegant, rational, and
easily understood by the layman without need for math, and if it shows
all the fundamental forces and "particles" reducible to *processes* of
One Flow driven by One Force in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows,
then, based on the law of probability (vis-a-vis "uncertainty"), the
theory holds a better chance of being true, than not.

And the Devil's-Advocate response might be akin to...

Gravity as a "pull" force, as a force field emanating
from matter and "attracting" other matter, is an axiom
that has been held without evidence, (that bears a
repeat), *without evidence* since the origins of mind,
since the beginnings of antiquity. So, it's not just the
age that makes it so hard to break, it's also the fact
that there is no evidence to support the Pull-Gravity
Axiom. It is deeply acceptable _without question_!

If someone comes along with a "push" theory of any
kind, particulate or energetic, science will not even try
to begin to accept it unless the proposal is neatly and
tightly wrapped with hypercompelling evidence found
by strictly applying the scientific method.

I believe that this is also the reason for the deep, deep
embeddedness of the Void-Space Paradigm. While this
axiom is much younger than Pull Gravity, there is still
no compelling scientific evidence either way. And since
a SPED or any other kind of aether is deemed wholly
"unnecessary", even "unlikely" to today's physics tenets,
Wolter's profound thoughts go unattended, and we
continue to bang our (fortunately very hard) heads up
against walls of steel.

And yet, the banging can be fun, educational, even
occasionally insightful. Or so i keep reminding myself.

g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net